Skip to comments.Autopsy: Michael Brown Was Shot 6 Times
Posted on 08/18/2014 3:41:30 AM PDT by Enterprise
The results of a private autopsy on Michael Brown may escalate tensions in Ferguson, Missouri even further: The examiner says the unarmed teenager was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, and all the bullets came from the front, reports the New York Times. Pathologist Michael Baden, New York City's former chief medical examiner, says all the bullets were fired from at least one or two feet away, and one bulletapparently the last one firedhit the top of the 18-year-old's head.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
boom, headshot... boom, headshot.
Where did this source get the information about one or two feet away? The NYT long article said there were no powder burns, but that the clothes were not tested and powder might be on them.
BTW, the NYT did break this story and reported fairly, I think, saying in the headline all shots were fired at the front of the body.
And this morning on the news they’re saying there were no gunpowder traces on his body or clothes, which I assume would indicate we was shot even further away than one or two feet. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth of the matter.
“At least 1 to 2 feet away” is not the same as “no more than 1 to 2 feet away”.
I also remember reading that there were no powder burns on Brown. In light of this report by the Pathologist I am wondering how was this possible?
Doubt? I can guarantee with al & jessie sticking their race baiting noses in that the truth will NEVER come out.
Moderator—Is this parenthetical claim that the shots were fired 1 to 2 feet away—as opposed to “at least 1 to 2 feet away” sufficiently misleading and inflammatory to remove it from the FR headline?
Thanks for the info re Baden..
Hopefully, all will be explained about how it’s possible but then again...
At least 1 to 2 feet away is not the same as no more than 1 to 2 feet away.
Quite correct, 15 feet is “at least 1 to 2 feet away”. Let’s not make unwarranted assumptions folks. More evidence will be forthcoming.
Some people just don’t know how to behave.
Operative words there are ‘at least’. The reason they’re saying that is because there’s no powder burns on the flesh around the wounds.
He could have been at 2.5 feet, 25 feet even 25 yards. You can’t tell for sure from a post mortem (though you can sometimes guess, based on caliber, bullet weight and observed tissue damage.)
Working in reverse, the phrasing no more than 1 to 2 feet away limits the distance to a maximum of 2 feet. Why would the phrasing "at 1east" 1 to 2 feet away be used? Could it have been 3 feet away, 10 feet, 35 feet? At what point can we, or others reading the report, reasonably infer the distance from the front of the pistol to the first strike on Brown?
I heard ABC Radio News a number of times last night. The fella s writing the copy could not bring themselves to include the following pertinent facts:
1:It was the second autopsy.
2:It was done at the specific request of Michael Brown’s family.
3: It was performed by Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York.
4: All the wounds were in the front or top of the head contrary to Brown’s accomplice’s report who said most were in the back.
The MF at ABC want a Race War for some reason. Or maybe they were just waiting for Obama to lift the Information Embargo.
All we can infer from the autopsy report is that it was “at least 1 to 2 feet away”. The eyewitness reports seem to suggest it was quite a bit further, but nothing at this point leads to the conclusion that the shooting was “1 to 2 feet away”.
I don’t disagree with 9 year lurker on this. If my parenthetical wording is misleading, the post should be taken down.
“shot at least six times” could have been fewer shots, and 6 hits as some could have pass through arms.
Questions I have: What was this man on? PCP, Heroin?
What kind of ammo was it?
IMHO, Regardless of race, when that big man started coming at me, I would have felt threatened enough to open fire.
I think its just jargon-speak for "we didn't find any powder burns on the body that we would expect if the gun were within 2 feet of the wound."
Upon further review, I agree that the autopsy report might not be able to accurately ascertain the distance. The people who would nail that down would be the crime scene investigators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.